Back
Dharmasthala Mass Burial SIT Cannot Wait for DGP Transfer, Must Register FIR:
The on Monday heard a significant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning 74 cases of unnatural deaths in and around Dharmasthala, where the petitioner—the mother of a woman allegedly raped and murdered in —argued that the cannot wait for the to transfer cases before registering First Information Reports (FIRs). A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharath Kumar was told that the SIT, having been declared a police station by a government order, is legally bound to register FIRs upon receiving information disclosing a , without any further authorization.
Background: The Mass Burial Allegations and the SIT’s Mandate
The controversy stems from a sanitation worker’s complaint that he was instructed to bury bodies of women and children between and in Dharmasthala. In , the SIT took over the probe into these alleged mass burial sites. The petitioner’s representation dated , detailed 74 cases described as “” and urged the SIT to register separate FIRs. However, despite the SIT being constituted and even declared a police station under the government order, no FIR had been registered in any of these cases for over 14 months.
The petitioner placed before the court an SIT report dated , and a letter dated , from SIT head Dr. Pronab Mohanty, IPS, obtained under the . The report stated that the SIT had “no authority to investigate/enquire into any case ” and could only take up cases if the DG&IGP specifically transferred them. This position directly clashed with the petitioner’s argument that a police station is duty-bound to register an FIR when a is disclosed.
The Legal Challenge: SIT as a Police Station
Advocate , appearing for the petitioner, contended that the SIT’s stance violates the clear mandate of as interpreted by the in . He argued that once a police station is established, it must register an FIR upon receipt of information about a . “A police station receiving information disclosing a is bound to register an FIR and does not require permission from the DG&IGP to do so or a transfer order to investigate a case registered by it,” Khosla submitted.
The petitioner further pointed out that despite being declared a police station, the SIT had not registered a single FIR in relation to any unnatural death within its mandate, even 14 months after its constitution. The memorandum produced in court also revealed that the petitioner’s representation of , which specifically disclosed cognizable offences in all 74 cases, had been ignored. This “silence” gave rise to an apprehension, the petitioner argued, that persons in authority were “shielding and protecting the accused” and that time was being sought to “avoid or postpone action against those named or implicated in the complaint.”
Court’s Observations and State’s Delay
The State sought two more weeks to file its objections, but Khosla opposed this, noting that the State had been impleaded and notice issued on . The matter had been deferred repeatedly at the State’s request, and nearly seven months after the High Court directed the government in March to file a detailed statement on investigative steps taken by police officers in multiple unnatural deaths, no such statement was on record.
The bench expressed its displeasure with the repeated delays. “The plea will proceed on whether or not the State’s objections are filed,” the court observed, signalling that it would not countenance further procrastination.
Legal Analysis: Mandatory FIR Registration Under Lalita Kumari
The core legal issue is whether the SIT, having been declared a police station, can be legally restricted from registering FIRs until the DG&IGP orders a transfer. The petitioner’s reliance on Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP , a landmark decision mandating compulsory registration of FIR in cognizable offences, is well-founded. The in that case held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under if the information discloses a . No prior approval or transfer order is required. The only exception is when the information does not disclose a , which is not the case here given the detailed allegations of rape and murder.
By claiming it cannot act , the SIT appears to be contradicting its own legal status. If the SIT is indeed a police station, it must register FIRs as per the . If it is not functioning as one, the government order declaring it as such may be illusory. This discrepancy raises serious questions about accountability and the executive’s control over investigative agencies.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
This case underscores a critical principle: once a investigating agency is constituted as a police station, it must follow the same legal obligations as any other police station. Legal professionals will note that any attempt to bypass mandatory FIR registration—by requiring superior approval or transfer orders—likely violates the constitutional scheme of investigation under . The SIT’s argument could set a dangerous precedent that allows specialized units to avoid their primary duty of registering FRI on cognizable complaints.
Moreover, the apparent destruction of records dating before 2010, as admitted by the State earlier, adds another layer of concern. The petitioner’s PIL seeks not only registration of FRI but also excavation of burial sites, DNA identification, and action against officials who failed to follow mandatory procedures under and the . These prayers aim to restore procedural integrity in death investigations.
Concludion
As the matter awaits its next hearing on , the High Court has made it clear that it will not tolerate further delay. The petitioner’s counsel has successfully framed the issue as one of legal duty versus executive discretion. If the court ultimately holds that the SIT must register FIRs independently, it will reaffirm the primacy of and constrain attempts to channelize DG&IGP control over police station functions. For the legal community, this case serves as a reminder that the rubric of “investigative independence” cannot be used to abdicate the basic duty to document crime complaints promptly. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for how specialized investigation teams operate across India.
